I have a feeling scroll wheels, even though they supposedly are more ergonomic than mice without them, are just as likely to cause RSIs than regular mice.
I'm using one right now, and I can feel the knuckle of my index finger and the muscles on that side of the hand moving every time I use the wheel.
In fact, once you start paying attention to the feeling, it becomes rather uncomfortable.
Try, people, to understand that computer companies, for the most part, do things as simply as they can. If you understand the more complex stuff and want a more complex mouse, get one by all means. Don't expect that everybody in the world needs a 3-button optical wheel mouse, or trackball, or whatever it is you own, and certainly don't expect the company to force your mindset on other people.
And as for being one button being misguided, sheesh, the OS is designed to work just great with one mouse button and can accept as many as you want.
Windows is designed with two buttons in mind, and that makes it nearly impossible to do tasks like getting properties without a two button mouse.
X-Windows is designed with 3.... do you see where I'm going? Different OSes have different minimal mousing requirements. Apple's OS needs only 1. If _you_ need more to function on the Mac OS, by all means, buy one.
I brought it in to work one day, plugged it into a Windows 2000 box and Win2K installed it and used it lickety-split.
Of course it doesn't have that _second mouse button_ but you can get around in Windows without it, you know.
Worked fine for me, albeit the cord was a little short.
And maybe you don't understand this, but Microsoft's mice also work with the _Mac_! (Golly gee, you mean MS makes software/hardware for Crapintosh? I always knew they were st00pid)...
People searching for a quality optical mouse who don't need/want a scroll wheel or extra buttons and who use a Mac will now have such a mouse _right when they buy the machine_. That in itself makes people less likely to buy the Intellimouse for the Mac.
I personally think the biggest mistake supporters of OS make is that software is information, and unlike physical objects can be duplicated and exist in many places at one time.
Free code doesn't go proprietary - someone takes free code and uses it in a proprietary program. However, that code is still out there, on thouands of other hard drives, still available to anyone else. The only copy not available to everyone else is, for example, mine, if I chose to use a proprietary license.
What the community loses in that case is not the code, but the development work of the person who took it proprietary - the enhancements and additions to code. In other words, the OS community is designed to encourage people to share their work with the community, but the most it can lose via OSS being used in proprietary software is the original work of developers who work on the proprietary software. Isn't it the choice of the developers how the fruits of their labor be scattered?
Anyway, thanks for your clarification and do understand that I think 'sharing' is the ethic we need to cultivate, and that enhancements as a result of that sharing are beneficial.
I'm not fully aware of NeXT history, but I've heard some of that. I make no apologies for Apple (I can't). And I do see greed everywhere. I've been screwed over by big business more times than I can count.
However in this instance I spoke about it in the context of OS.
And a company that is mindful of what is legal and illegal and doesn't want to expose their company to legal threats will not include GPLed code in their programs. Apple is very adamant about that, for example.
They might include BSD code, but people who offer their code under BSD-style licenses don't have a moral objection to proprietary software.
First of all, the guy with the most claim to have developed the Mach kernel, Avie Tevanian, works for Apple. How could have taken his own stuff from the Open Source community. Moreover, Apple has been proactive in sharing its enhancements through Darwin, and through sending patches and code back to the *BSD camps and to GNU for the GCC, for example.
The second point, about taking what you like from SO and putting it in AbiWord improving both may improve both _for you_ since you don't use the one you don't like (SO) and get to use its enhancements that you do like (filters in AbiWord). However, as a whole it does nothing for the SO code, and if the attitude is primarily similar to yours, SO dies.
I didn't say there shouldn't be clones. I said that we should look beyond the 'take take take' mentality.
As for the difference between taking ideas from commercial ventures vs. OS commercial ventures, in the end you still _take_. One is willing to share and GPLs, the other is not. Either way, you don't offer anything to the people who have shared with you. You simply say "Thanks for the code, I'll go use it in this other product X, ta-ta." That attitude is sure going to win lots of allies.
As for SO taking - they can now that they're GPLing it. They couldn't when they were under a different license.
Finally, regarding raiding and pillaging - you can't pillage VA - they make hardware. Red Hat forms the basis for Mandrake Linux, though, and countless other distros. And you don't understand that Apple is _not_ pillaging. They actually _share their improvements back to the community_. If you improve filters as you're putting them into AbiWord, will you send them to a contact at Sun too for inclusion in SO?
If you spent time on the Darwin lists, you'd find Apple very willing to return as much as it can. It also will not use GPL software because they don't want to be FORCED to release Mac OS X as free software - after all, it is their bread and butter.
Thinking that commercial enterprises are going to go from completely proprietary to completely open source in such a short amount of time is unrealistic. And the attitude you offer here is that companies who don't go the whole way immediately aren't welcome. I don't think that's the right way to win supporters.
And because they offer a form of insurance that State Farm doesn't offer: If I'm going to die in a car accident with a Honda Civic, I'll be damned well assured that that I'm gonna take the other guy with me.
That's sick. Maybe when you reach Heaven or Hell or whatever, you'll be able to feel happy that somebody else died horribly along with you. You'll be able to spend eternity thinking about how that 'insurance' made everything OK.
Or maybe you'll just wink out and it will be all over and nothing will matter for you any more. But your family and friends and those of the other driver will face the grief of a stupid, senseless accident.
And you think there is some sort of justice in two people dying in a tragic accident instead of one?
I'm not talking about innovation in terms of coming up with the next feature that's going to make you more money. I _do_ commend the Open Source movement for producing, for the most part, quality software. I do commend it for redefining the way software is developed.. (Ironically, that's innovation in itself.)
My comment was that innovation can and should exist here in the Open Source community as well. We should all strive to move the computing world forward, not for the mere benefit of hot-dogging but for the benefit of the users.
Again, I am impressed tremendously by the OS community. It has done many great things, but if it ever were thrust into a position of leadership (strange to think about, being a collective and not an individual) in the industry, the community would need to innovate in order to keep the industry afloat.
> If Star Office is GPL'd, it could have great trickle-down effects on AbiWord and other Linux office software.
Why does the OS community always think of commercial companies opening their software in terms of 'take, take, take?'
I've seen it with Apple, Darwin and OS X first-hand. Apple releases a BSD-license OS and immediately, Slashdot shouts "They should Open Source the Mac OS so we can take X and Y!" Now, Sun decides to GPL StarOffice and the Slashdot comments 'maybe this will help [insert competing OS Office Suite here]'
Maybe the other office suites will improve as a result. I hope so. However, the Open Source community consistently projects the attitude that Free software from corporations presents nothing but a feeding ground for carrion birds.
Why can't you improve StarOffice itself? Why do you flaunt your open hostility to commercial ventures that have chosen to support you?
Of course, the OS community thrives on sharing code, and I'm not criticizing that aspect. I am criticizing its tendency to follow, not lead: How many projects announced on Freshmeat or hosted on SourceForge exist as 'Free' alternatives to already existing proprietary software? Does the OS community all act like buzzards, picking the good meat from commercial open source ventures and leaving the bones when they finish?
I read several of the Darwin development lists and I see that there are a significant number of people who actually do contribute to Apple's open source efforts. The majority of you, however, think only in terms of raiding and pillaging, out of some staunch anticommercialism, even when the company supports your cause.
The Open Source Community will never lead as long as it continues to follow. Shining lights do exist, but the vast majority of Open Source software owes its existence to someone else's innovation, someone else's creative process, and someone else's hard work to develop the idea originally.
Realize that a much more innovative atmosphere can exist when you spend your time exploring new ideas and ways to improve the software that go beyond other's ideas, than when you spend your time stealing ideas and code from the next new OS project to come from Sun.
I have met several web developers who plan to do just that, who argue up and down that they're going to code for the "better browser" and that it's not their fault that the Mac and Unix and Netscape markets (millions of users) make up less that 20% of the Internet users. They see 80/20, not 80 million/20 million (assuming 100 million people on the Net).. There's a BIG difference between turning away 10 people and turning away 10 million people.
But they don't listen. And these are people who are very capable developers in other ways! It's mainly because they've sold out - they say "I can either sell myself out to where the money is, or I can make a little less money (in their minds, they rationalize, you see) AND retain my ethics." what do they choose? The money.
But you want to know something? You CAN'T code to every W3C standard and have the sites show up. CSS was a recommended complete standard in 1996! CSS2 was finished in 1998, IIRC. It's been 4 and 2 years, respectively, for NN and IE to implement these standards and they have failed miserably. I can code CSS-P until I'm blue in the face and it won't work reliably in IE4/5/5.5 and Netscape at the same time.
This is why IE needs to implement the standards before innovating, instead of innovating and ignoring the standards. MS wants us to be forced into using their proprietary extensions to do things we can't do because of lack of standards support.
Why? It's called lock-in. They want to lock-in every Internet user to a Windows box running IE. I'm sick of their blatant attempts to extend their monopoly over the office, the home and the media. I have no sympathy for anyone who sympathizes with Microsoft, because they too have been blinded by the bilious rhetoric the company spews out over this country.
This is not capitalism, it is the attempt of a private company to run our entire lives. If I have to choose between the government and Microsoft controlling my life, I would much rather have the government do it. At least then I have the illusion of the electoral system.
The sooner its morally corrupt ways are punished (do you think anyone at Microsoft understands just how wrong their actions are in a free society?); the sooner Microsoft is disassembled, and the sooner it has to compete on a more even playing field with the rest of the industry, the better off we will all be.
Howver, quite a few people I have met who GPL their code do so in part because they don't want commercial companies to profit off of their code.
What I don't understand about this whole thing is the virality of the GPL. You can write a license that requires people to publish the source to all code that is under that license but does not require a person to publish their own code too. If the only goal of the GPL were to prevent people from taking software that is available in source form and release it without source, there would be no viral component to the GPL. But that's not so...
RMS believes that it is immoral for software to exist without being "free." From what I've heard, he thought it was immoral to have passwords on accounts until not long ago. The issue at stake is the degree to which information should be free.
My take on it is this: if I make information public, it should remain public. If I make information private, that's my prerogative to have my secrets. They'll either be found out eventually, willingly released, or already be known to others anyway.
The big difference of information vs. property is that information can be duplicated. We can all have a copy of the same information, but we can't all share the same physical space. Therefore, even if a company does take open source code and make it private, guess what? Someone, somewhere, still has the code and the information, and it is not 'gone' for everyone else.
Nobody has taken anything from anyone. RMS politicizes the idea by saying it's WRONG for people to use information in any way they see fit. He says instead that 'you have to use information this way, and if you do use it, by the way, you have to do this, this and this with your own information, because we believe in freedom of code.'
I'm working on a more in-depth exploration of this, but it boils down to this: information's value is not intrinsic. The value of information is proportional to its degree of utility to the most people.
Licenses of any sort, by limiting the usage of information, inhibit its value to humans.
The GPL focuses on freedom of code at the expense of freedom of humans. (I know that's a harsh statement, and I may be wrong - I'm exploring an idea here.)
Don't moderate me down for an unpopular idea, please.
The difference between code and property is that code can be duplicated, and then both have it.
The company has my code, and I have my code. Let them do what they want with it, because I still have my code and can do what I want with it.
You can't take _away_ public domain code. You can use it for profit, sure, and make changes and improvements that aren't released into the public domain, but the original code is still in the public domain.
I don't have a problem with people using my code for profit. A lot of people who use GPL do.
You talk about there being a problem with software being available to anyone who wants it, anywhere, for any purpose.
Public domain is the most free of all the licenses. No encumberment at all.
I actually think that's a good thing. The GPL likes to inject political ideas into data. Public domain says 'I made this, you can use it to help yourself' no matter who you are, commercial or non.
What you're describing exists on Mac OS 9 and Mac OS X now. The concept is called "application packages" on Mac OS 9 and bundles on Mac OS X.
Basically, everything an application needs is encapsulated in a special type of folder. The folder is marked as a 'bundle' (Hence the precocious 'bundle bit' that's been in the Mac OS for years!) and to the Finder and any application that uses the system's file-handling routines, the folder looks like a single file.
It can, of course, be opened by getting info on the bundle and clicking a button that says something to the effect of 'Open As Folder.'
Within the folder are the application and all its support files, and as you are asking, you can open foo, you can open foo/bar, etc.
So the idea of bundles is almost exactly what you're talking about - Apple isn't creating some sort of binary monstrosity but in essence made a folder pretend it's an application. When you double click, or 'open foo', the application opens. When you 'vi foo/etc/prefs.xml' you get the contents of prefs.xml.
Simplicity and power rolled up in one. Let me know if I've got something mixed up about what you're asking for. In the meantime, some links:
Oh, and poke around in the other Ars reviews of Mac OS X DPs... there's a lot of great information there, and it should explain a LOT about the structure and ideals behind the new OS.
Then why don't developers debug their products fully before thrusting it on the public?
And why, oh why, would a developer rely on code that they know is buggy? If it's that bad, write your own!
Application programmers probably aren't lazy. It's the companies that hire them that decide it would cost too much to take the extra time to make sure the application is rock-solid.
You can develop applications that won't crash ON any OS for any OS.
Most Mac developers have Macsbug, which provides a very good debugging environment. When the Mac crashes, instead of locking up, it goes into Macsbug which lets you do all sorts of things like view what part of memory was overwritten and where the problem was, and often lets you recover from crashes that systems without Macsbug can't.
Apple doesn't include this with standard install because a window full of memory registers would freak out most consumers!:)
While the lack of memory protection makes this theoretically possible, the only machine that makes my Mac OS 9 box crash hard like that is IE5. Everything else "Unexpectedly quits" when it crashes.
I haven't had a non-IE hard crash since upgrading to OS 9, and I use this computer heavily for everything from web development to gaming to surfing.
Come to think of it, I've had IE take down Win98 a fair number of times too. And I've had theNetscape and X system freeze up hard on me too on Linux.
Explain to me again how IE taking down a Mac, IE taking down a Win98 box and Netscape/X taking down a Linux box are different. In my case, despite the protected memory on Linux, the end result was functionally the same for all. Reboot.
Personally, I don't think that memory protection is an excuse for bad coding, which is what it amounts to on Windows and Linux. Don't rely on the OS to clean up after you!
Sure, it's free, but you have to pay for Windows 2000 Advanced Server to get it. It's like, oh, I dunno. ASP. IIS.
QTSS is free, crossplatform and Open Source..:)
But you're right, I was under the impression that the MS streaming software cost money. It doesn't have a direct price tag but it still requires an NT server.
Does it? Is it on the Mac OS 9 CD? hmmm.. just installed Mac OS 9 on that computer over there.. lemme check.
Well, it's not installed with Mac OS 9, so maybe Apple's been including it with the new machines. I do know that the iMac I bought in 1998 *bondi*... didn't come with it, but I wouldn't be surprised if Apple included it with new machines. After all, the company does like to allow choice: It's the only major operating system that ships with two major graphical browsers.:)
(And DON'T anyone start going on to me about choice. Some people are so into customizing via text files that they can't use a control panel.)
Apple has never intended to make any money on its streaming server software, evidenced by the fact that while MS and Real charge out the nose for theirs, Apple gives away the whole server, with source to boot.
So for Apple, they get a major boon: RealServer, which is an established media server for many businesses, will now also stream QT files. That means the likelihood of sites offering QT streams will go up, which means more people will use the Quicktime software to view those streams. RealServer gets the ability to cater to millions more people since they can now stream to a client that is included in every copy of Mac OS on every Macintosh sold in the past year or so (and there's quite a few of those, believe me) plus another slew of clients on Windows.
Frankly, I think Apple is making a good move here. The more people that integrate QT streaming into their apps, the more QT becomes an entrenched standard.
And for the Qt-on-Linux people: I am almost sure that Apple has looked and continues to look at Quicktime on Linux. It's a shoe-in considering the porting efforts to Darwin.. but consider the effort needed to port QT to Linux. First of all, the video system in Linux needs much work to get it up to the same speed as proprietary systems. Moreover, which windowing system: should they call it kQuicktime or gQuicktime?
But the most important question: how many of you asking for Quicktime on Linux would be satisfied if that happened? Or would the new Question of the Day on Slashdot be: When is Apple going to Open Source Quicktime for Linux? It's not GPL, so why should I use it? etc...
If some of us would be thankful for the efforts the proprietary software community HAS made to work with and join the Open Source movement, instead of being so damn jaded and ungrateful, perhaps these companies would be motivated to join the cause wholeheartedly.
Instead most of us can't accept the fact that companies, like people, change and can mend their ways. Most of us see green and hate it. Most of us can't get beyond our petty prejudices to see the benefits some of these companies bring.
And until then Linux and the like will continue to be a fringe OS, because we refuse to work with others to improve ourselves.
Get off your high horse and write a thank you to IBM's Open Source advocate. Or Apple's.. check the Darwin list, there are many of them at Apple.
Some of you are just so self-righteous it's sickening.
The difference (Microsoft vs Microsoft & Windows separate) is that in order to make their applications and OS tightly integrated and more compatible, they can only communicate through public APIs. They can't under the table negotiate secret hooks and calls nobody else knows about.
Suddenly every office application developer is on a level playing field. Suddenly the apps company needs to differentiate in order to maintain their awesome marketshare.
See, the gov't understands more than most people give them credit for.
While that may be true for many Mac users, I think you'll find those of us who have been working on them for as many years as you have been working on a PC are as competent on our OS as any Linux guru is on Linux.
Having been using a Mac for 10-12 (I stopped counting after 7) years, when I decided to build myself a PC and install Linux on it, want to know what the only problem I had was? Didn't seat the RAM correctly so the computer beeped when I turned it on.
If you want to talk about some Mac users, fine. But don't slight all of us because there are quite a few gurus.
Now, if you're talking about Mac users coming to Windows or Linux, geez! Windows is nowhere near as intuitive or consistent as a Mac, and it does take people some time to get up to speed.
As for Linux, there's a definite learning curve. If you don't believe that, you're deluded. But I'm a Mac user, and GEE, I figured it out. I'm posting this from Linux.
Go back to your AC hole or limit your statement to the _subset_ of Mac users who are thick fuckers. And compare the size of that subset to the _subset_ of Windows users who are thick fuckers.
And finally, recognize that when it comes to Linux, most all of us were thick fuckers when we started; the difference between us is how long it took to understand it all.
Yes. He has _dictated_ that democracy will be the rule.
On the other hand, he has also dictated that nobody will be able to dictate after he leaves. It's the same sort of contradiction that exists in the GPL - You support the opposite of IP by invoking IP. You can't do that without getting involved with the existing system.
I don't think I explained myself fully regarding the term 'support.'... you may dislike the concept of IP very much, but by making use of IP to further your end of destroying IP, you reach an ethical dilemna because you validate the concept by making use of it!
I'm not sure how you can ethically separate the legal from the moral. I don't know of many laws that don't advance some moral viewpoint, even if those I don't agree with.
I can understand the moral value that free software must remain free, and the moral value that intellectual property is a bad thing. However, the very notion of the GPL is that, "Because I believe in the freedom of software, I will exercise MY copyright in its defense by releasing the software as GPL."
By invoking the GPL, you implicitly support intellectual property, _even_ if the motive is to spread the property over many intellects.
You can't separate the legal concept of copyright and intellectual property from the moral concept, no matter how hard you try. Indeed, as originally conceived, the IP laws in this country were designed to _encourage_ the sharing of ideas while also providing some short-lived protection on them, after which they become public domain. That it has been corrupted over time, I agree.
There is a contradiction in the values of the FSF and the legal implications of the GPL. Only by enforcing and accepting intellectual property rights can the FSF protect the copyleft - which purports to thwart such things.
I'm sure the FSF is aware of the contradiction and considers it acceptable in light of its purpose. But understand that the FSF is also amassing considerable IP given the amount of code assigned to it.
The same law that protects your enemies protects you.
A GUI on top. A CLI for power users. Open formats (XML, Java, Apache, TCP/IP, etc) underneath it all.... heck, even Open Source?
Sounds like Apple's plan for Mac OS X.
Are we beginning to get the idea that perhaps Apple does Get It?
Apple's long history of GUI development has given them a unique perspective on the new computer user. After all, they wanted to develop computers "For the Rest of Us.." and some of the features of the Mac OS that frustrate power users are exactly the features that enable newbies.
Apple may just be the one company capable of making *NIX palatable to the masses. Eazel may improve the top level of Linux with their work, but as someone noted above, consistency is a major problem with Linux (look at all the config formats, at the distribution layouts,...) and, though it's getting better, documentation is a problem as well.
I hope Apple can pull it off, I really do. A successful Mac OS X will in one stroke create an OS that is powerful enough for the most powerful user yet easy enough for the newbie, and do a great service at legitimizing bringing the core of one's business into Open Source with Darwin.
Slashdot Mirror
I have a feeling scroll wheels, even though they supposedly are more ergonomic than mice without them, are just as likely to cause RSIs than regular mice.
:P
I'm using one right now, and I can feel the knuckle of my index finger and the muscles on that side of the hand moving every time I use the wheel.
In fact, once you start paying attention to the feeling, it becomes rather uncomfortable.
Try, people, to understand that computer companies, for the most part, do things as simply as they can. If you understand the more complex stuff and want a more complex mouse, get one by all means. Don't expect that everybody in the world needs a 3-button optical wheel mouse, or trackball, or whatever it is you own, and certainly don't expect the company to force your mindset on other people.
And as for being one button being misguided, sheesh, the OS is designed to work just great with one mouse button and can accept as many as you want.
Windows is designed with two buttons in mind, and that makes it nearly impossible to do tasks like getting properties without a two button mouse.
X-Windows is designed with 3.... do you see where I'm going? Different OSes have different minimal mousing requirements. Apple's OS needs only 1. If _you_ need more to function on the Mac OS, by all means, buy one.
Hrm, this scroll wheel hurts now
The price seems pretty close to Microsoft's Intellimouse and Intellimouse Explorer... how is it a 'high spare parts price?'
Sure it does.
I brought it in to work one day, plugged it into a Windows 2000 box and Win2K installed it and used it lickety-split.
Of course it doesn't have that _second mouse button_ but you can get around in Windows without it, you know.
Worked fine for me, albeit the cord was a little short.
And maybe you don't understand this, but Microsoft's mice also work with the _Mac_! (Golly gee, you mean MS makes software/hardware for Crapintosh? I always knew they were st00pid)...
People searching for a quality optical mouse who don't need/want a scroll wheel or extra buttons and who use a Mac will now have such a mouse _right when they buy the machine_. That in itself makes people less likely to buy the Intellimouse for the Mac.
Thanks for your explanation.
I personally think the biggest mistake supporters of OS make is that software is information, and unlike physical objects can be duplicated and exist in many places at one time.
Free code doesn't go proprietary - someone takes free code and uses it in a proprietary program. However, that code is still out there, on thouands of other hard drives, still available to anyone else. The only copy not available to everyone else is, for example, mine, if I chose to use a proprietary license.
What the community loses in that case is not the code, but the development work of the person who took it proprietary - the enhancements and additions to code. In other words, the OS community is designed to encourage people to share their work with the community, but the most it can lose via OSS being used in proprietary software is the original work of developers who work on the proprietary software. Isn't it the choice of the developers how the fruits of their labor be scattered?
Anyway, thanks for your clarification and do understand that I think 'sharing' is the ethic we need to cultivate, and that enhancements as a result of that sharing are beneficial.
I'm not fully aware of NeXT history, but I've heard some of that. I make no apologies for Apple (I can't). And I do see greed everywhere. I've been screwed over by big business more times than I can count.
However in this instance I spoke about it in the context of OS.
I'm very interested in hearing examples! :)
And a company that is mindful of what is legal and illegal and doesn't want to expose their company to legal threats will not include GPLed code in their programs. Apple is very adamant about that, for example.
They might include BSD code, but people who offer their code under BSD-style licenses don't have a moral objection to proprietary software.
First of all, the guy with the most claim to have developed the Mach kernel, Avie Tevanian, works for Apple. How could have taken his own stuff from the Open Source community. Moreover, Apple has been proactive in sharing its enhancements through Darwin, and through sending patches and code back to the *BSD camps and to GNU for the GCC, for example.
The second point, about taking what you like from SO and putting it in AbiWord improving both may improve both _for you_ since you don't use the one you don't like (SO) and get to use its enhancements that you do like (filters in AbiWord). However, as a whole it does nothing for the SO code, and if the attitude is primarily similar to yours, SO dies.
I didn't say there shouldn't be clones. I said that we should look beyond the 'take take take' mentality.
As for the difference between taking ideas from commercial ventures vs. OS commercial ventures, in the end you still _take_. One is willing to share and GPLs, the other is not. Either way, you don't offer anything to the people who have shared with you. You simply say "Thanks for the code, I'll go use it in this other product X, ta-ta." That attitude is sure going to win lots of allies.
As for SO taking - they can now that they're GPLing it. They couldn't when they were under a different license.
Finally, regarding raiding and pillaging - you can't pillage VA - they make hardware. Red Hat forms the basis for Mandrake Linux, though, and countless other distros. And you don't understand that Apple is _not_ pillaging. They actually _share their improvements back to the community_. If you improve filters as you're putting them into AbiWord, will you send them to a contact at Sun too for inclusion in SO?
If you spent time on the Darwin lists, you'd find Apple very willing to return as much as it can. It also will not use GPL software because they don't want to be FORCED to release Mac OS X as free software - after all, it is their bread and butter.
Thinking that commercial enterprises are going to go from completely proprietary to completely open source in such a short amount of time is unrealistic. And the attitude you offer here is that companies who don't go the whole way immediately aren't welcome. I don't think that's the right way to win supporters.
And because they offer a form of insurance that State Farm doesn't offer: If I'm going to die in a car accident with a Honda Civic, I'll be damned well assured that that I'm gonna take the other guy with me.
That's sick. Maybe when you reach Heaven or Hell or whatever, you'll be able to feel happy that somebody else died horribly along with you. You'll be able to spend eternity thinking about how that 'insurance' made everything OK.
Or maybe you'll just wink out and it will be all over and nothing will matter for you any more. But your family and friends and those of the other driver will face the grief of a stupid, senseless accident.
And you think there is some sort of justice in two people dying in a tragic accident instead of one?
You disgust me.
I'm not talking about innovation in terms of coming up with the next feature that's going to make you more money. I _do_ commend the Open Source movement for producing, for the most part, quality software. I do commend it for redefining the way software is developed.. (Ironically, that's innovation in itself.)
My comment was that innovation can and should exist here in the Open Source community as well. We should all strive to move the computing world forward, not for the mere benefit of hot-dogging but for the benefit of the users.
Again, I am impressed tremendously by the OS community. It has done many great things, but if it ever were thrust into a position of leadership (strange to think about, being a collective and not an individual) in the industry, the community would need to innovate in order to keep the industry afloat.
That's all I'm saying there.
> If Star Office is GPL'd, it could have great trickle-down effects on AbiWord and other Linux office software.
Why does the OS community always think of commercial companies opening their software in terms of 'take, take, take?'
I've seen it with Apple, Darwin and OS X first-hand. Apple releases a BSD-license OS and immediately, Slashdot shouts "They should Open Source the Mac OS so we can take X and Y!" Now, Sun decides to GPL StarOffice and the Slashdot comments 'maybe this will help [insert competing OS Office Suite here]'
Maybe the other office suites will improve as a result. I hope so. However, the Open Source community consistently projects the attitude that Free software from corporations presents nothing but a feeding ground for carrion birds.
Why can't you improve StarOffice itself? Why do you flaunt your open hostility to commercial ventures that have chosen to support you?
Of course, the OS community thrives on sharing code, and I'm not criticizing that aspect. I am criticizing its tendency to follow, not lead: How many projects announced on Freshmeat or hosted on SourceForge exist as 'Free' alternatives to already existing proprietary software? Does the OS community all act like buzzards, picking the good meat from commercial open source ventures and leaving the bones when they finish?
I read several of the Darwin development lists and I see that there are a significant number of people who actually do contribute to Apple's open source efforts. The majority of you, however, think only in terms of raiding and pillaging, out of some staunch anticommercialism, even when the company supports your cause.
The Open Source Community will never lead as long as it continues to follow. Shining lights do exist, but the vast majority of Open Source software owes its existence to someone else's innovation, someone else's creative process, and someone else's hard work to develop the idea originally.
Realize that a much more innovative atmosphere can exist when you spend your time exploring new ideas and ways to improve the software that go beyond other's ideas, than when you spend your time stealing ideas and code from the next new OS project to come from Sun.
I have met several web developers who plan to do just that, who argue up and down that they're going to code for the "better browser" and that it's not their fault that the Mac and Unix and Netscape markets (millions of users) make up less that 20% of the Internet users. They see 80/20, not 80 million/20 million (assuming 100 million people on the Net).. There's a BIG difference between turning away 10 people and turning away 10 million people.
But they don't listen. And these are people who are very capable developers in other ways! It's mainly because they've sold out - they say "I can either sell myself out to where the money is, or I can make a little less money (in their minds, they rationalize, you see) AND retain my ethics." what do they choose? The money.
But you want to know something? You CAN'T code to every W3C standard and have the sites show up. CSS was a recommended complete standard in 1996! CSS2 was finished in 1998, IIRC. It's been 4 and 2 years, respectively, for NN and IE to implement these standards and they have failed miserably. I can code CSS-P until I'm blue in the face and it won't work reliably in IE4/5/5.5 and Netscape at the same time.
This is why IE needs to implement the standards before innovating, instead of innovating and ignoring the standards. MS wants us to be forced into using their proprietary extensions to do things we can't do because of lack of standards support.
Why? It's called lock-in. They want to lock-in every Internet user to a Windows box running IE. I'm sick of their blatant attempts to extend their monopoly over the office, the home and the media. I have no sympathy for anyone who sympathizes with Microsoft, because they too have been blinded by the bilious rhetoric the company spews out over this country.
This is not capitalism, it is the attempt of a private company to run our entire lives. If I have to choose between the government and Microsoft controlling my life, I would much rather have the government do it. At least then I have the illusion of the electoral system.
The sooner its morally corrupt ways are punished (do you think anyone at Microsoft understands just how wrong their actions are in a free society?); the sooner Microsoft is disassembled, and the sooner it has to compete on a more even playing field with the rest of the industry, the better off we will all be.
To hell with Microsoft, and good riddance.
Please note I didn't say 'all'
Howver, quite a few people I have met who GPL their code do so in part because they don't want commercial companies to profit off of their code.
What I don't understand about this whole thing is the virality of the GPL. You can write a license that requires people to publish the source to all code that is under that license but does not require a person to publish their own code too. If the only goal of the GPL were to prevent people from taking software that is available in source form and release it without source, there would be no viral component to the GPL. But that's not so...
RMS believes that it is immoral for software to exist without being "free." From what I've heard, he thought it was immoral to have passwords on accounts until not long ago. The issue at stake is the degree to which information should be free.
My take on it is this: if I make information public, it should remain public. If I make information private, that's my prerogative to have my secrets. They'll either be found out eventually, willingly released, or already be known to others anyway.
The big difference of information vs. property is that information can be duplicated. We can all have a copy of the same information, but we can't all share the same physical space. Therefore, even if a company does take open source code and make it private, guess what? Someone, somewhere, still has the code and the information, and it is not 'gone' for everyone else.
Nobody has taken anything from anyone. RMS politicizes the idea by saying it's WRONG for people to use information in any way they see fit. He says instead that 'you have to use information this way, and if you do use it, by the way, you have to do this, this and this with your own information, because we believe in freedom of code.'
I'm working on a more in-depth exploration of this, but it boils down to this: information's value is not intrinsic. The value of information is proportional to its degree of utility to the most people.
Licenses of any sort, by limiting the usage of information, inhibit its value to humans.
The GPL focuses on freedom of code at the expense of freedom of humans. (I know that's a harsh statement, and I may be wrong - I'm exploring an idea here.)
Don't moderate me down for an unpopular idea, please.
The difference between code and property is that code can be duplicated, and then both have it.
The company has my code, and I have my code. Let them do what they want with it, because I still have my code and can do what I want with it.
You can't take _away_ public domain code. You can use it for profit, sure, and make changes and improvements that aren't released into the public domain, but the original code is still in the public domain.
I don't have a problem with people using my code for profit. A lot of people who use GPL do.
You talk about there being a problem with software being available to anyone who wants it, anywhere, for any purpose.
Public domain is the most free of all the licenses. No encumberment at all.
I actually think that's a good thing. The GPL likes to inject political ideas into data. Public domain says 'I made this, you can use it to help yourself' no matter who you are, commercial or non.
What you're describing exists on Mac OS 9 and Mac OS X now. The concept is called "application packages" on Mac OS 9 and bundles on Mac OS X.
1 , and l
Basically, everything an application needs is encapsulated in a special type of folder. The folder is marked as a 'bundle' (Hence the precocious 'bundle bit' that's been in the Mac OS for years!) and to the Finder and any application that uses the system's file-handling routines, the folder looks like a single file.
It can, of course, be opened by getting info on the bundle and clicking a button that says something to the effect of 'Open As Folder.'
Within the folder are the application and all its support files, and as you are asking, you can open foo, you can open foo/bar, etc.
So the idea of bundles is almost exactly what you're talking about - Apple isn't creating some sort of binary monstrosity but in essence made a folder pretend it's an application. When you double click, or 'open foo', the application opens. When you 'vi foo/etc/prefs.xml' you get the contents of prefs.xml.
Simplicity and power rolled up in one. Let me know if I've got something mixed up about what you're asking for. In the meantime, some links:
http://arstechni ca.com/reviews/2q00/macos-qna/macos-x-qa-2.html#q
http://arstechni ca.com/reviews/2q00/macos-x-dp4/macos-x-dp4-2.htm
Oh, and poke around in the other Ars reviews of Mac OS X DPs... there's a lot of great information there, and it should explain a LOT about the structure and ideals behind the new OS.
Then why don't developers debug their products fully before thrusting it on the public?
:)
And why, oh why, would a developer rely on code that they know is buggy? If it's that bad, write your own!
Application programmers probably aren't lazy. It's the companies that hire them that decide it would cost too much to take the extra time to make sure the application is rock-solid.
You can develop applications that won't crash ON any OS for any OS.
Most Mac developers have Macsbug, which provides a very good debugging environment. When the Mac crashes, instead of locking up, it goes into Macsbug which lets you do all sorts of things like view what part of memory was overwritten and where the problem was, and often lets you recover from crashes that systems without Macsbug can't.
Apple doesn't include this with standard install because a window full of memory registers would freak out most consumers!
While the lack of memory protection makes this theoretically possible, the only machine that makes my Mac OS 9 box crash hard like that is IE5. Everything else "Unexpectedly quits" when it crashes.
I haven't had a non-IE hard crash since upgrading to OS 9, and I use this computer heavily for everything from web development to gaming to surfing.
Come to think of it, I've had IE take down Win98 a fair number of times too. And I've had theNetscape and X system freeze up hard on me too on Linux.
Explain to me again how IE taking down a Mac, IE taking down a Win98 box and Netscape/X taking down a Linux box are different. In my case, despite the protected memory on Linux, the end result was functionally the same for all. Reboot.
Personally, I don't think that memory protection is an excuse for bad coding, which is what it amounts to on Windows and Linux. Don't rely on the OS to clean up after you!
Sure, it's free, but you have to pay for Windows 2000 Advanced Server to get it. It's like, oh, I dunno. ASP. IIS.
:)
QTSS is free, crossplatform and Open Source..
But you're right, I was under the impression that the MS streaming software cost money. It doesn't have a direct price tag but it still requires an NT server.
Does it? Is it on the Mac OS 9 CD? hmmm.. just installed Mac OS 9 on that computer over there.. lemme check.
:)
Well, it's not installed with Mac OS 9, so maybe Apple's been including it with the new machines. I do know that the iMac I bought in 1998 *bondi*... didn't come with it, but I wouldn't be surprised if Apple included it with new machines. After all, the company does like to allow choice: It's the only major operating system that ships with two major graphical browsers.
(And DON'T anyone start going on to me about choice. Some people are so into customizing via text files that they can't use a control panel.)
Apple has never intended to make any money on its streaming server software, evidenced by the fact that while MS and Real charge out the nose for theirs, Apple gives away the whole server, with source to boot.
So for Apple, they get a major boon: RealServer, which is an established media server for many businesses, will now also stream QT files. That means the likelihood of sites offering QT streams will go up, which means more people will use the Quicktime software to view those streams. RealServer gets the ability to cater to millions more people since they can now stream to a client that is included in every copy of Mac OS on every Macintosh sold in the past year or so (and there's quite a few of those, believe me) plus another slew of clients on Windows.
Frankly, I think Apple is making a good move here. The more people that integrate QT streaming into their apps, the more QT becomes an entrenched standard.
And for the Qt-on-Linux people: I am almost sure that Apple has looked and continues to look at Quicktime on Linux. It's a shoe-in considering the porting efforts to Darwin.. but consider the effort needed to port QT to Linux. First of all, the video system in Linux needs much work to get it up to the same speed as proprietary systems. Moreover, which windowing system: should they call it kQuicktime or gQuicktime?
But the most important question: how many of you asking for Quicktime on Linux would be satisfied if that happened? Or would the new Question of the Day on Slashdot be: When is Apple going to Open Source Quicktime for Linux? It's not GPL, so why should I use it? etc...
If some of us would be thankful for the efforts the proprietary software community HAS made to work with and join the Open Source movement, instead of being so damn jaded and ungrateful, perhaps these companies would be motivated to join the cause wholeheartedly.
Instead most of us can't accept the fact that companies, like people, change and can mend their ways. Most of us see green and hate it. Most of us can't get beyond our petty prejudices to see the benefits some of these companies bring.
And until then Linux and the like will continue to be a fringe OS, because we refuse to work with others to improve ourselves.
Get off your high horse and write a thank you to IBM's Open Source advocate. Or Apple's.. check the Darwin list, there are many of them at Apple.
Some of you are just so self-righteous it's sickening.
The difference (Microsoft vs Microsoft & Windows separate) is that in order to make their applications and OS tightly integrated and more compatible, they can only communicate through public APIs. They can't under the table negotiate secret hooks and calls nobody else knows about.
Suddenly every office application developer is on a level playing field. Suddenly the apps company needs to differentiate in order to maintain their awesome marketshare.
See, the gov't understands more than most people give them credit for.
While that may be true for many Mac users, I think you'll find those of us who have been working on them for as many years as you have been working on a PC are as competent on our OS as any Linux guru is on Linux.
Having been using a Mac for 10-12 (I stopped counting after 7) years, when I decided to build myself a PC and install Linux on it, want to know what the only problem I had was? Didn't seat the RAM correctly so the computer beeped when I turned it on.
If you want to talk about some Mac users, fine. But don't slight all of us because there are quite a few gurus.
Now, if you're talking about Mac users coming to Windows or Linux, geez! Windows is nowhere near as intuitive or consistent as a Mac, and it does take people some time to get up to speed.
As for Linux, there's a definite learning curve. If you don't believe that, you're deluded. But I'm a Mac user, and GEE, I figured it out. I'm posting this from Linux.
Go back to your AC hole or limit your statement to the _subset_ of Mac users who are thick fuckers. And compare the size of that subset to the _subset_ of Windows users who are thick fuckers.
And finally, recognize that when it comes to Linux, most all of us were thick fuckers when we started; the difference between us is how long it took to understand it all.
Yes. He has _dictated_ that democracy will be the rule.
... you may dislike the concept of IP very much, but by making use of IP to further your end of destroying IP, you reach an ethical dilemna because you validate the concept by making use of it!
On the other hand, he has also dictated that nobody will be able to dictate after he leaves. It's the same sort of contradiction that exists in the GPL - You support the opposite of IP by invoking IP. You can't do that without getting involved with the existing system.
I don't think I explained myself fully regarding the term 'support.'
I'm not sure how you can ethically separate the legal from the moral. I don't know of many laws that don't advance some moral viewpoint, even if those I don't agree with.
I can understand the moral value that free software must remain free, and the moral value that intellectual property is a bad thing. However, the very notion of the GPL is that, "Because I believe in the freedom of software, I will exercise MY copyright in its defense by releasing the software as GPL."
By invoking the GPL, you implicitly support intellectual property, _even_ if the motive is to spread the property over many intellects.
You can't separate the legal concept of copyright and intellectual property from the moral concept, no matter how hard you try. Indeed, as originally conceived, the IP laws in this country were designed to _encourage_ the sharing of ideas while also providing some short-lived protection on them, after which they become public domain. That it has been corrupted over time, I agree.
There is a contradiction in the values of the FSF and the legal implications of the GPL. Only by enforcing and accepting intellectual property rights can the FSF protect the copyleft - which purports to thwart such things.
I'm sure the FSF is aware of the contradiction and considers it acceptable in light of its purpose. But understand that the FSF is also amassing considerable IP given the amount of code assigned to it.
The same law that protects your enemies protects you.
A GUI on top.
...) and, though it's getting better, documentation is a problem as well.
A CLI for power users.
Open formats (XML, Java, Apache, TCP/IP, etc) underneath it all.... heck, even Open Source?
Sounds like Apple's plan for Mac OS X.
Are we beginning to get the idea that perhaps Apple does Get It?
Apple's long history of GUI development has given them a unique perspective on the new computer user. After all, they wanted to develop computers "For the Rest of Us.." and some of the features of the Mac OS that frustrate power users are exactly the features that enable newbies.
Apple may just be the one company capable of making *NIX palatable to the masses. Eazel may improve the top level of Linux with their work, but as someone noted above, consistency is a major problem with Linux (look at all the config formats, at the distribution layouts,
I hope Apple can pull it off, I really do. A successful Mac OS X will in one stroke create an OS that is powerful enough for the most powerful user yet easy enough for the newbie, and do a great service at legitimizing bringing the core of one's business into Open Source with Darwin.
:)